Connect with us

Opinion

Withdrawal Of Abacha’s Case Right Or Wrong?

Published

on

The Attorney-General of the Federation, and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke, (SAN), last Wednesday withdrew the money laundry charges preferred against Mohammed Abacha, the eldest son of late military dictator, Sani Abacha.
Some Port Harcourt residents joined other citizens in other parts of the country to react to the federal government’s decision. They spoke  to our chief correspondent, Calista Ezeaku. Our photographer, Dele Obinna captured their images.
Bar Bariyima Kokpan
Legally speaking, there is nothing wrong with the withdraw of that allegation. The government has the power to do that. But when you look at the action morally, it is wrong. It is a set back in the fight against corruption in the country and it will encourage other people to indulge in corrupt practices. I learnt the money involved runs into billions of naira and for the federal government to just suddenly withdraw the case without any reason, no condition. It’s somehow. I don’t know weather there are other consideration but in the best of my knowledge and what I read in the newspapers, no cogent reason was given for the decision.
The government is the persecutor, they have the facts, they have the evidence. So if at the end of the day they find out that if they proceed with the prosecution the likelihood of them getting a conviction is not there, government can go ahead to drop the charges.
You have to bear in mind that if the government continues with the charge and eventually he is discharged and acquitted he has a right against the government to sue for malicious prosecution. So, subject to the facts available to the federal government, I know, as a lawyer, that the Attorney General of the federation, even of the state has the right to withdraw a charge.
But as I said earlier, the considerations for the withdrawal of this allegation is not clear. If you are talking about plea bargaining, can we really say that was what transpired in this case. If there was plea bargain, I’m sure we will be aware. For instance there was plea bargain in Tafa Balogun’s case. There was plea bargain in Cecilia Iburu’s case. When there is plea bargain the accuser says, Ï am ready to forfeit so, so amount out of the money you are accusing me that I allegedly stole, while I keep the other one. And the government says if you can give us maybe 70% or 80%, we will forgive you.
In this case how much was he alleged to have laundered, how much is he refunding to the government? How much is he keeping? In the absence of all these explanations it is difficult to just come up to say they have refunded some money to the government. I just pray that it is not all about political consideration.
It gives an impression  that the federal government is not determined to fight corruption. Even though the federal government may have her reasons, but the general impression is that government is not really serious to fight corruption. The effect is that people continue to think that you can do anything and get away with it.
Look at it from another angle. Look at the amount involved, consider that there are so many people languishing in our prisons perhaps for stealing handsets of N2,000.00. So the higher you go, the freeier you become. That’s why I started by saying that morally speaking the withdraw is wrong.

Mr Olubwayo Alex Olanrewaju (Banker)
For me I think it shows that we are not ready to fight corruption. In the  first instance somebody is being charged for corruption and the same people that found him wanton are discharging that same person of that allegation. How did they come about it? For me I strongly feel we are not serious. We are not ready to take the bull by the horn. Both the ICPC, EFCC and all that are just joking. Our courts are in shambles. The verdicts they have these days, I don’t know how they come about them.
For me, that shouldn’t be. The guy has to face the music. There are serious allegations against him and he should not just be discharged like that. It doesn’t make sense. The judiciary really needs to sit up. They say judiciary is the last hope of the common man but right now, I don’t see any hope there. As a country, does it mean we cannot address this problem of corruption? Is corruption bigger than Nigeria? I don’t think so. I think the withdrawal of the money laundry case is not right at all. Human Right Organisations, National Orientation Agency really have to sensitise Nigerians on the evils of corruption, starting from the primary schools, Nigerians really need to be re-orientated.

Mr Nixon Madume(Public servant)
In my own view, the withdrawal of the case is wrong because he committed an offence and under normal circumstances, where the judiciary is working very well he should be prosecuted for it but because of one thing or the other, maybe because of the powers from the north or for political reasons they decided to pardon him. But I think it is a very wrong approach to our war against corruption. Most times people who were involved in crimes like that were set free and tomorrow we say we are fighting corruption while we cannot set example with the cases we have already. Sometimes I wonder how justifiable it is to punish people in the lower cadre in the society  who commit one crime or the other while the people up there who commit greater offences are set free.
I don’t think other countries will take us serious when we say we are wagging war against corruption, in this country. I will advise that justice should always prevail, no matter who is involved.

Mr Beemene Tanee (journalist)
Well, the truth is that Nigeria is becoming very reluctant to respond to the imperatives of justice. For political reasons, this allegation has been withdrawn but there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed so that we cannot relapse into the insensitivities of the past. If we say that we are trying to review the country on the part of democracy, then there is need for people to be answerable for their misdeeds against people. And that draws us to the fact that at a time Abacha’s family was frontal in the Nigeria management and they misused it. But now they have given them political concession and they are trying to give them a soft landing when there are a lot of issues to be addressed. It’s like you are giving a blank cheque to public servants to loot that at the end of the day, nothing will happen.
Justice should not be selective. Any person that has been found wanton should be brought to book. At a point in time, Mohammed Abacha was more draconian than his father because of unfertile access to state resources. That was very wrong. And I want to call on the federal government to ensure that the fight against corruption is not selective and that every person that is found wanton should be properly investigated and brought to book according to the law.
This withdraw of money laundry case against Abacha’s son gives the impression that the fight against corruption in Nigeria is dismal. It is not a vibrant fight. The federal government is soft peddling but they say he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. You don’t expect to give some people soft landing while you direct your fight against maybe those you consider to be against the powers that be.
So, it is wrong. The federal government must be proactive in the fight against corruption by ensuring that every sector of the economy is sanitised.
Meanwhile, Abacha’s family should not be the only people in focus maybe because the patriarch is no longer there. All  past leaders, Generals should be investigated. And all excesses in terms of mismanagement of funds should be properly addressed.

Mr Iheanyi Ezinwo (Publisher)
As a behavioral scientist, I don’t run into conclusions. It is only people who have some hidden agenda that will run into conclusions. Before a case is withdrawn, it presupposes that some discussions or agreements have taken place. You remember that even before Jonathan’s administration, we have had some cases of plea bargaining where somebody pleads guilty, returns some amount of money and he is allowed to go. I also read that Abacha’s family refunded millions of dollars to the federal government. It is possible that there have been some discussions, some agreements that if they refunded certain amount, he would be allowed to go, and some out of court settlements and decisions like that. So it is not just enough for somebody to say öh federal government has let this people go” and this and that. There must have been a reason. I read where federal government explained that Abacha’s family has refunded some money and that was the reason for withdrawing the case.
You see, a lot of people who are raising eye brows and shouting to the hilltops over whatever may have transpired, forget that Abacha was not the first and last head of state this country has had. There have been both civilian and military heads of state before Abacha and after him. And all of them took more than their fair share of our resources and many of them are still parading around and even condemning this decision. An situation where some will want to be talking about Abacha’s family because the man is late, I don’t think it is right. Abacha was not the only person who stole Nigeria’s money. Other former heads of state stole. They should go and  recover it from them. Even some people who are in government today are busy stealing and they will be the first to raise alarm.
So I believe that is not the best way to move forward in this country. If we want to make progress the fight against corruption must be holistic weather you are dead or alive.

Continue Reading

Opinion

One Attack Too Many 

Published

on

Quote: “Ogoniland does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create more opportunities, empower youths and build a better future.”

The latest attack by Chief Gani Topba on the President of KAGOTE and Chief Executive Officer of Giolee Global Resources Ltd, Chief Lesi Maol, appears to have opened another troubling chapter in the politics of leadership and influence in Ogoniland. While disagreements are inevitable, the frequency and manner of attacks directed at individuals or organisations contributing to Ogoni development should concern every stakeholder. The concluded extraordinary meeting of Ogoni stakeholders in Bori was convened to deliberate on challenges confronting the people, including insecurity, farmers-herders clashes, youth disunity, education and development. It also considered harmonising the numerous youth organisations operating across Ogoniland under a strong and representative umbrella capable of giving Ogoni youths a more coordinated voice. One would have expected such an initiative to attract constructive contributions, especially from those with reservations about it.

Instead, the gathering and its organisers have come under criticism, raising a fundamental question: what exactly is wrong with Ogoni stakeholders coming together to discuss problems affecting their people? If there are legitimate concerns about the meeting, its organisers or resolutions, such concerns should be supported by facts and subjected to constructive engagement rather than personalised attacks. Leadership is demonstrated through service, sacrifice, participation and results. If Chief Gani Topba believes the stakeholders’ meeting was unnecessary or lacked legitimacy, nothing prevents him from convening another meeting and demonstrating that he can attract traditional rulers, professionals, academics, clergy and youths. Different approaches to development should therefore be allowed to compete on their merits.

The proposal for a unified youth platform should equally not be presented as an attempt to silence Ogoni youths. Rather, it should be examined against the reality of numerous organisations claiming to represent different segments of Ogoni youths. Too many competing organisations can create confusion, weaken collective bargaining power and make it difficult for genuine concerns affecting young people to receive coordinated attention. A credible umbrella body, if properly constituted and broadly accepted, could strengthen the voice of Ogoni youths and provide an organised platform for employment, education, skills acquisition, security and governance. Ogoniland has experienced enough institutional fragmentation. Its history contains painful lessons about divisions that allow personal interests, leadership struggles and competing platforms to overshadow collective objectives. The present generation should learn that destroying institutions one does not control damages society.

The question should be: who benefits when Ogoni youths remain divided and every attempt at unity is interpreted as rivalry? Against this background, KAGOTE deserves objective scrutiny rather than blanket condemnation. Any organisation with influence must be accountable, but accountability is different from a campaign aimed at delegitimising initiatives associated with its leadership. Chief Lesi Maol’s activities through KAGOTE and Giolee Global Resources Ltd have attracted attention in areas including skills development, education, youth empowerment and community support. Such interventions should be assessed on their impact and encouraged where they serve the public good. Those who believe Chief Maol is not doing enough should not stop at criticism. They should show Ogoni what they can do better. Where are the alternative skills programmes? Where are the educational interventions? Where are the youth empowerment schemes? Where are the community development initiatives?

It is easy to criticise someone who is building; it is harder to mobilise resources and sustain programmes that benefit ordinary people. This is not to suggest that Chief Maol or KAGOTE should be immune from criticism. No leader or institution should be beyond scrutiny, and legitimate questions about accountability must be welcomed. But responsible criticism should be based on facts, evidence and alternative ideas. Personal attacks and attempts to destroy initiatives simply because their leadership is not controlled by particular interests cannot provide the solutions Ogoniland needs. What is unfolding is bigger than one meeting, one statement or even two individuals. It reflects a broader contest over influence and leadership. If anyone believes KAGOTE is taking Ogoni in the wrong direction, the response is to present a better direction. If anyone believes Lesi Maol is not doing enough, the answer is to demonstrate what more can be done. Ogoni does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create opportunities, improve education, promote security, empower youths and contribute to development.

The people are looking beyond rhetoric. They are examining records, observing programmes and measuring results. No individual owns the permanent right to speak for Ogoni or determine which organisation must survive or collapse. Ogoni must replace the politics of personal control with a culture of ideas, service, accountability and measurable achievement. Differences should produce better alternatives, not destruction. Every Ogoni leader and stakeholder should ask whether his actions are strengthening the region or deepening divisions. Ogoni needs people who can build bridges, institutions, opportunities and hope. Those who genuinely love Ogoni should support what is good, correct what is wrong and offer better alternatives. The future of Ogoni will not be secured by destroying its builders, but by encouraging more people to build.

onest people can reach different conclusions based on different experiences and information. Public debate should therefore remain respectful, evidence-based and open to correction. Truth is strengthened by honest examination, not insults, suspicion or personal attacks. The phrase “Truth has no agenda” carries a powerful message. Truth does not belong to any political party, ethnic group, religion or ideology. It cannot be permanently owned or manipulated by those in power. Governments change, institutions rise and fall, and public opinion shifts, but truth remains indifferent to popularity.The real test of character comes when speaking honestly threatens influence, privilege or personal advantage. It is easy to defend justice when there is nothing to lose. It is far more difficult when the truth may cost us something. That is when conscience must rise above convenience.

Society must therefore cultivate a culture where integrity is valued more than comfort and accountability is welcomed rather than feared. Leaders should learn to accept criticism without hostility, while citizens should express disagreement responsibly. Progress becomes difficult when honest questions are treated as acts of disloyalty. Ultimately, every society must choose the future it desires. A nation built on silence cannot sustain justice, while a community where comfort consistently outweighs conscience risks making injustice ordinary. But people committed to truth, even when inconvenient, lay the foundation for stronger institutions, trustworthy leadership and lasting progress. The call is not to condemn those who succeed or to glorify perpetual criticism. It is to remember that privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good. Truth has no hidden agenda. It seeks neither applause nor favour. It simply asks to be spoken, defended and lived. When truth is silenced by comfort, everyone eventually pays the price.

By:  King Onunwor
Continue Reading

Opinion

When Comfort Silences The Truth  

Published

on

Quote: “Privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good.”

There is an old saying that truth does not fear investigation. Genuine truth neither depends on applause nor seeks permission to exist. It remains constant whether celebrated or rejected, defended or ignored. Yet, in today’s society, truth often competes with comfort, convenience, loyalty and personal interest. This raises an important question: Can a person remain objective after beginning to benefit from the very system he once criticised? Throughout history, reform movements have been driven by courageous individuals willing to challenge injustice despite personal risks. Their commitment to truth sometimes cost them popularity, comfort, freedom and even their lives. History has also recorded instances where influential voices became quieter after receiving appointments, promotions, contracts, political favours or other advantages.

While motivations cannot always be known, such patterns remind us that personal benefit can sometimes influence public conviction. Human beings naturally seek security, stability and opportunities for themselves and their families. There is nothing wrong with success or advancement. The concern arises when personal comfort replaces public responsibility, or privilege becomes a reason to ignore problems affecting others. One of the greatest dangers facing society is not only corruption or poor governance but the normalisation of silence. Systems rarely collapse overnight. They deteriorate gradually when people who know better decide that speaking the truth is no longer worth the personal cost. Every society therefore depends on citizens willing to ask difficult questions, demand accountability and defend justice, regardless of who benefits or feels uncomfortable.

A person who benefits from a broken system may become less inclined to challenge it. This is not true of everyone, and individuals should not be judged without evidence. Many principled people continue to advocate reform while working within imperfect institutions. Nevertheless, personal interests can sometimes soften criticism, dilute conviction or redirect attention from uncomfortable realities.Perhaps the greatest threat to truth is not open opposition but quiet compromise. Censorship is easy to recognise; silence purchased through convenience is harder to detect. When people gradually stop asking questions, demanding transparency or defending principles they once considered important, society should ask whether something has changed. Perspectives may genuinely evolve with new information, but incentives can also influence what people say—or choose not to say.

This is why citizens should not place blind trust in personalities. Ideas, principles and actions should be examined independently. Loyalty to individuals must never exceed loyalty to truth. Political affiliation, professional status, financial success or social influence should not exempt anyone from accountability. A healthy democracy depends on independent thinking, not unquestioning allegiance.The responsibility to speak truth does not belong only to journalists, activists, judges, religious leaders or opposition politicians. It belongs to every citizen. The teacher who refuses to manipulate facts, the public servant who rejects corruption, the business owner who acts with integrity, the parent who teaches honesty and the young person who chooses principle over popularity all contribute to a more just society. However, defending truth also requires humility.

We must not assume that everyone who disagrees with us has been compromised.

By: Michael  Abraham

Continue Reading

Opinion

Poor Federal Roads: The Oshiomhole’s  Outburst

Published

on

Quote:”Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat”

The recent outburst by the lawmaker representing Edo North Senatorial District, Senator Adams Oshiomhole, over the deplorable condition of federal roads in Edo and Delta states has once again drawn national attention to one of Nigeria’s most persistent infrastructure challenges. During Senate plenary last Wednesday, Oshiomhole criticized the Minister of Works, David Umahi, accusing the Federal Ministry of Works of neglecting major federal highways in Edo and Delta while prioritizing new road projects. According to him, the government should focus on rehabilitating existing roads that have become impassable before embarking on new construction. He identified the Benin-Warri, Benin-Asaba, Benin-Auchi and Auchi-Okene highways as strategic economic corridors that have deteriorated to alarming levels, making travel difficult for commuters and motorists while increasing the cost of transporting goods and services.

The senator also alleged that road projects affecting Edo and Delta states were repeatedly omitted from budgetary provisions and that some interventions were only undertaken following directives from President Bola Tinubu. Ironically, the Federal Government has consistently reiterated its commitment to reconstructing and rehabilitating federal roads across the country. The Minister of Works has repeatedly assured Nigerians that the government is deploying reinforced concrete technology to build more durable highways capable of withstanding the country’s climatic conditions. Despite these assurances, vast sections of federal road across the country remain in deplorable condition. The consequences are enormous. Federal highways serve as the backbone of the nation’s economy, carrying more than 90 per cent of passengers and freight.

They connect ports, airports, industrial centres, state capitals and agricultural belts, facilitating the movement of food, fuel, cement and manufactured goods. When these roads fail, the entire economy suffers. Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat. The result is a recurring cycle in which newly completed roads quickly deteriorate while existing ones are left to collapse. The economic consequences are severe. Bad roads increase transportation costs, contribute to food inflation, delay the movement of goods from ports to markets, increase vehicle maintenance expenses and lead to avoidable road crashes that claim countless lives every year.

To address these challenges, the Federal Government has introduced initiatives such as the Highway Development and Management Initiative (HDMI), which seeks to attract private investment into road maintenance through concessions and tolling. While the initiative holds promise, public acceptance will depend largely on visible improvements in road quality and transparent management of toll revenues. Similarly, the Road Infrastructure Tax Credit Scheme is designed to encourage companies to finance the reconstruction of strategic highways in exchange for tax credits. While the scheme has shown promise, its ability to address road infrastructure challenges equitably across the country remains to be seen. Other countries facing similar infrastructure challenges have demonstrated that sustainable road management requires a different approach.

Rwanda and Morocco, for instance, have prioritized dedicated road maintenance funds, performance-based contracts that reward quality rather than kilometers constructed, and policies that allocate a significant proportion of road budgets to maintenance instead of new construction. Nigeria can draw useful lessons from these experiences. Maintenance funding should be increased and protected because preventive maintenance is far cheaper than complete reconstruction. Public-private partnerships should be expanded with adequate safeguards, transparent tolling policies and independent monitoring. Development finance institutions should support contractors with affordable financing to minimize disruptions caused by delayed government payments. Road designs should withstand heavier rainfall and flooding, while compensation and right-of-way issues must be resolved before projects begin to avoid unnecessary delays.

FERMA should also prioritize durable, high-quality road maintenance over the shoddy repairs that have become all too common. Ultimately, Nigerians are not asking for perfect roads; they simply want roads that are safe, durable and properly maintained. While new highways are desirable, a well-maintained five-kilometer stretch is often far more valuable to road users than a much longer road that quickly falls into disrepair. The media, civil society, the National Assembly and Nigerians must continue to hold the government accountable by monitoring road projects and demanding better results. Good roads are not a privilege but a right of every citizen. With tax credit schemes, concessions and other funding mechanisms already in place, what is now required is political will, transparency and consistent implementation. However, Senator Oshiomhole’s criticism also invites legitimate public reflection. 

Many Nigerians have asked what the condition of these same federal roads was during his eight-year tenure as Governor of Edo State. Several governors, including those of Rivers State at different times, undertook repairs on critical federal roads within their states and subsequently sought reimbursement from the Federal Government. It is therefore fair to ask whether similar interventions were pursued during Oshiomhole’s administration. Public officials, whether serving or former, should be judged by the same standard. Constructive criticism is essential in a democracy, but it carries greater weight when matched by a demonstrable record of action. Nigerians expect those entrusted with public office to address pressing challenges while they have the authority to do so, rather than becoming vocal critics only after leaving office

By:  Calista Ezeaku
Continue Reading

Trending